My fellow American consumers, welcome to the Orwellian version of protection that plays as public service by the corporate government in Washington.
The same Agencies, we the public fund with tax dollars, to protect us, are stepping up to protect industry instead.
This is shocking or shockingly routine, depending on your mainstream media diet but it is stunning in the clear message it sends to citizens. Eh, what you don't know won't hurt you, just close your eyes.
We are being protected in yet another new and different way, now we'll be saved from knowing anything that will negatively impoact the growth of the petrochemical markets, earnings and liability.
Whew, Uncle Sam always knows when to spare my little brain from details it doesn't need. Don't I feel smart to be in such good company with so many esteemed sources able to not know too.
What a lot of not knowers we'll be. Now researchers and other regulatory agencies like the EPA will be not knowing as much as me.
As acreage of the gmo crops has soared so has the chemical volume and strength to treat them. No sense alarming the public with figures on pesticide use.
We are going to talk about the numbers in Hillary's math to the White House for the next month. How many more numbers do voters really need to see?
No sense confusing folks by thinking about negatives when we can simply cut the reporting to unreported. With a stroke of the pen, the problem is solved.
It was about two years ago the FED did the same thing. They stopped reporting the M3 figures for the money supply and now we've got more money circulating than anyone can shake a stick at. No one even knows how much. How great is that? This not knowing is a catchy theme that's really caught on.
Success inspires imitation; all through our government the failings have vanished. If ignorance is bliss we are well on our way to the happiest time in America's history. Nirvana in a simple, don't look, don't find policy.
Here's a straighter take on the most recent outrage from the Center for Food Safety.
Elimination of USDA's Program Will Perpetuate Misinformation on Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture, Groups Charge
Washington, DC - May 20, 2008 - The day before the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) releases its scaled-back annual report on 2007 pesticide use in American agriculture, a coalition of 44 environmental, sustainable farming, and health advocacy organizations called on USDA to reverse its plan to eliminate its pesticide reporting program in 2008. Elimination of USDA's objective data will open the door wide to serious misinformation on pesticide use, charge the groups. USDA claims it lacks funding to continue the program.
"Americans are rightly concerned about the adverse impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment," said Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist at The Organic Center. "Without USDA's data, our organizations will be severely hampered in our ability to carry out research on the impacts of pesticides and offer informed input on decision-making regarding pesticide use and pest management systems in American agriculture."
Dr. Benbrook, former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, is one of the country's leading agricultural authorities, and has used USDAs pesticide data extensively in his work for many years.
"We strongly oppose this move by USDA to cut the legs off its publicly available database. Denying the public and regulatory agencies this critical information is bad science and bad public relations," said Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
State pesticide officials and major agribusiness groups have also objected to USDA's plan to end its pesticide survey and reporting program, say the groups. Others who rely on USDA data include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), academic scientists, and USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy.
Heck, why should all that information be available. People can just shutup and swallow whatever Congress and their lobbyists toss to us. Who does this government belong to anyway?
This is getting more than just scary, Pamela
I'm sending this out to as many people as I can (thinkbeforeyoupink). Thanks for the info, as always.
I agree with you comments. I have been a RFTC supporter for almost 9 years... I am a 9-year breast cancer survivor and considered myself in the inner sanctum of a group I thought was doing the world good.
Now, come to find out, many of the companies that manufacture chemotherapy drugs are manufacturing harmful chemicals through their crops science group that ended up on the EPA's list of endocrine disruptors. And it has been suggested Komen and Brinker may be involved with these companies. I was exposed to large amounts of chemicals growing up and one of them, chlordane, is found in large amounts in breast cancer tissue. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
I have neighbors who spray like crazy. I am trying to get some limits on residential spraying. Search for my video on YouTube by searching beepesticidefree. Help stop the madness!!!
More of the same kind of 'protection' from King W's administration I don't need.
It is scary just how much we don't know, and now can't know, about how our food is produced.
No argument from me, keep up the good fight, Pamela!
Great article Pamela!
Not only is this informative and frightening about our food, but it's been posted on MSNBC under the Newsvine Correspondents section.
Looks like Al Olson and his team are keeping a close eye on ConsumerVine.
Very nice!
This is why corporations have full time legal teams and reams of lobbyists to push rules that benefit their bottom line. Unless bills are linked to local communities, and henceforth linked to the representative this kind of abuse will go on no matter who is in office.
Forest
Yep, all the more reason to highlight abuses and to contact our representatives and let them know how you feel.
This administration doesn't fund itself to give oversite, kind of like the SEC.....pretty tough to control anything without money.
Forest
But the EPA and USDA are still funded by Congress, aren't they?
Executive discretion allows the administration to underfund in a practical fashion. The money is earmarked but not given.
Forest
Right on, Pamela!
(Ohh, is it ok to use that phrase any more? Ohh, so what!)
Excellent article.
I had not heard about the EPA CHEERS program until I read #2.1 paragraph 2. Pretty intense stuff, as I found out via a googling, futuristic but in some highly absurd anti-humanistic bent. "They're killing themselves, let's watch..Give 'em a tee shirt too..."
I'd love to interview these people....Irregardless....
This study is the definition of ethical ineptitude and moral debasement. Subsequently, as one that seriously believes in the certitude of the dire consequences of the continuing presence of pesticides, persistent organic pollutants; to read of this methodology provokes nausea.
To utilize the EPA itself as a medium to spread disinformation and by that right protect those who will eventually be called out for their complicity in the calculated attempt to obscure this type of information from the public, is the height of corruption and nadir in the holding of the public trust.
Sure Pamela
Here we go... This is a link to the Commitee on Science and Technology's letter to the Administrator of the EPA questioning the ethics and worth of the CHEERS study.
Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on CHEERS
The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility published this article on the CHEERS program
Getting back to the crux of the story, this article from Common Dreams dated Nov 2007; details the EPA attempts to manage the outrage, but of course, according to the story, "EPA formally legalized human subject experimentation on February 6, 2007 [1]
This is a link to the EPA draft document on Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies. AKA Human Subject Experimentation.
Terrifically this cannot pass without a caveat to one source of the funding, the American Chemistry Council, to the tune of 2.1 million [2]
One should take a good look at some of the links in the Q&A section of the footnoted link.
Cheers!
ah hilarious!
Here's a disturbing little fact I found on the Farm Bill currently being fought over:
"Farm Bill Blocks Court-Ordered Release Of Subsidy Program Data Under FOIA" - Mulch Blog
A provision secretly tucked into the Farm Bill Conference Report (Sec. 1619, "Information Gathering") nullifies a recent, major federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of Information Act that ordered USDA to make public large amounts of data crucial to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of multi-billion-dollar farm subsidy and conservation programs.
Apparently, like the plan to do away with pesticide reporting, the government's answer to citizen concerns is to simply make the data unavailable.
Thank you Infohack, you should seed this as a separate article to get more eyeballs on it.
OK, I seeded it here:
Farm Bill Blocks Court-Ordered Release Of Subsidy Program Data Under FOIA.
Another issue I'm trying to track down is a provision in earlier version of the bill that would have exempted all records related to the Agriculture Department's animal identification system from the FOIA, relating to Mad Cow disease reporting, but I'm not sure where that stands at this point.
Thanks for the Update Pamela, how apropos - anything that threatens profit can be ignored. Psychopathic Politics at it's most egregious.
So much that seems confusing is as clear as a bell, when you follow the money! :~)
my sentiments exactly!
There are 73 chemicals on the EPAs endocrine disruptors list. Check it out at, you know, add www, then epa, then ., then gov/endo. Don't know how to cleverly add them in as you guys do...
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |